In the wake of candidate Kerry's concession of defeat to Bush, many United States citizens believe they must migrate out of the United States, if not renounce their citizenships. The Senate is now even more dominated by Republicans. In 11 States, propositions to ban gay marriage were on the ballot, and in all 11 States gay marriage was banned. Many liberals are rightly concerned that the central government is going to turn against them and impose upon them uniform laws, applicable to all States, that are hostile to their pursuit of happiness.
Now is the time for liberals to reflect on the association between liberal policies and the centralization of powers that began in the Civil War. Is there a limit to the degree to which central government should uniformly govern all States? Should the United Nations ultimately take on the role of legislating uniform rules for all countries?
Usually, the answer to these questions are disturbingly totalitarian when coming from supposedly "liberal" people. Their success in getting central governments to support their views has shielded them from the structural problems with such centralization. However, now that both plebiscites (in the form of ballot propositions) and the highest voter turnout in US history has shown "democracy" can turn against liberal policies -- liberals can reflect and become enlightened as to the real nature of what has been called The American Experiment.
The Civil War, while a victory of self-determination of individual slaves, was a disaster for self-determination of groups of like mind -- "religion" as intended by the First Amendment. The federal government took on a role that was feared by the founders -- the arbitrer of differing beliefs among peoples rather than facilitating the pursuit of happiness by peoples of differing beliefs.
This failure of the intent of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion is coming home to roost against the liberal way of life. There is increasing danger that uniform Federal statutes will impose fundamentalist Christian ideology uniformly across all States. The gambit of using the federal government to impose liberal policies has worked for decades but the simple mathematics of reproduction is that white liberals have trouble reproducing and cannot easily recruit new liberals from white families that have reproduced under Federal imposition of liberal policies.
Demography is destiny.
Now it is true that within a few decades it may be the case that the higher reproduction rates of other ethnicities, prone to vote Democratic, will outstrip the fecundity of fundamentalist Christian whites -- but this too could backfire. Hispanics are the fastest growing ethnic group and they are largely Catholic. Despite the fact that they continue to vote Democratic, not only might they never fully convert to liberal politics -- there is a very real chance they may succeed in shifting the Democratic party toward the right on issues such as abortion and homosexuality. Liberals have to ask themselves whether this deal with the devil of central power is worth the dangers to liberal ideology.
There must be a libertarian State, as many wish New Hampshire to become.
There must be a fundamentalist Christian state, as many wish South
Carolina (the State with the highest per capita African American
population) to become.
There must be a panmixia state, as New York is becoming.
There must be ethnostates, as Europe, Israel and the Amerindian reservations could still support.
There must be an east-west hybrid state as parts of Hawaii are becoming (with some islands reserved for indigenous Hawaiians).
There must be a "politically correct" state as California has become.
There must be a frontier for misfits, adventurers and downright dangerous experiments -- as the ocean deserts and space could be if interference with claims were prevented.
And even these aren't enough.
The problem is that all of these things represent true diversity which is the enemy of those who, in their profoundly destructive hypocrisy, equate "diversity" with intimate integration of diverse people within governments that cannot limit their interference in people's pursuit of happiness.
The fundamental conflict is between democracy as dispute
processing and migration as dispute processing. Migration is superior,
so long as eminent domain compensation applies, for the simple reason
that it allows self determination for all value systems -- not just value systems that can produce the most invasive voters world wide.
The practicalities of eminent domain displacement are always problematic, but people do survive and the system does enhance the general welfare. More problematic than eminent domain itself is the general issue of natural habitat destruction due to humans. Human diversity should be valued but so should general biodiversity. How this tradeoff should work is beyond the scope of this essay, but suffice to say that human population, with the assistance of technology, should increasingly migrate to environments of less natural biodiversity. Humans should be subject to the eminence of the natural domain, so to speak, as they become more adept at life support technology and can increasingly migrate to otherwise lifeless environments.
As for me, even if much greater limits were placed on federal power, I expect I would renounce my United States citizenship and either (if Europe could support ethnostates by fending off the demographic shift to Islam and other migration-induced panmixia) repatriate to one of the North Sea states of Europe or invest my remaining years in opening up one of the frontier states. This would be my pursuit of happiness.
Can you pursue happiness without, like Christian or Islamic theocrats, imposing your value system on others?